Concerns About the Baucus Health Care Bill

Today, Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) released his version of the national health care reform legislation. Initially, many in Washington anticipated that the bill would have bi-partisan support; however, to date no Republicans have signed on to the bill. Senators Grassley and Enzi, in fact, have expressed concerns about the abortion provisions.

Based on our initial reading, we too have concerns with the abortion provisions in this bill, which you can read here.

First, with regards to a minimum benefits package, p. 25 of the bill states that abortion cannot be a mandated benefit as part of a minimum benefits package except in those cases for which Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services are permitted. We are concerned that, if the Hyde Amendment is scrapped by the pro-abortion Congress, then abortion on demand could be mandated as a minimum benefit. Since 1976, the Hyde Amendment has been added each year to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) appropriations bill. The amendment prevents federal funding of abortion, except in limited circumstances. However, Congress could, at some point, fail to add the Hyde Amendment to the HHS appropriations bill, thus eliminating its protections.

Second, the bill permits health care plans to cover abortions for which federal funds are prohibited, but tax credits and cost-sharing credits cannot be used to pay for abortions beyond those permitted by the most recent appropriation for the Department of Health and Human Services. Under the bill, insurers participating in any state-based exchange that offer coverage for abortion beyond those permitted by the most recent appropriation for the Department of Health and Human Services must segregate from any premium and cost-sharing credits an amount of each enrollees private premium dollars that is determined to be sufficient to cover the provision of those services. Furthermore, the Secretary shall also establish a process using an estimated actuarial value by which insurers that provide coverage for abortions beyond those permitted by the most recent appropriation for the Department of Health and Human Services must demonstrate that no federal premium and cost-sharing credits are used for the purpose of paying for such abortions.

We are concerned that what this means in practice is that if the Hyde Amendment is scrapped, then federal funds, tax credits, and cost-sharing credits could be used to pay for abortion on demand. Additionally, even while the Hyde Amendment is in place, federal funds, tax credits, and cost-sharing credits can subsidize plans that provide abortion coverage, even though an accounting mechanism attempts to segregate funds.

Third, under the bill, each state exchange would be required to include a plan that provides coverage of abortions beyond those for which Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services are permitted. The Secretary would also ensure that in each state exchange, at least one plan does not provide coverage of abortions beyond those for which Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services are permitted.

Therefore, at least one plan would be mandated to cover elective abortion. Furthermore, if the Hyde Amendment is scrapped, there is not a requirement that each state exchange include a plan providing no abortion coverage.

Fourth, p. 25 of the bill contains a provision that would ensure that state laws regarding the prohibition or requirement of coverage or funding for abortions, and state laws involving abortion-related procedural requirements are not preempted. This provision would also ensure that Federal conscience protections are not preempted. It is unclear, however, how this provision would work in practice, particularly if the Hyde Amendment is deleted.

We will keep you posted on this bill and other measures now under consideration in Congress.

Just days ago we told you about the efforts being made to undermine the American election system with challenges being raised in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. We told you about our letter to the Pennsylvania election officials urging them to ensure that local law is meticulously followed.

President Obama’s outrageous decision to enter a secret deal to take in between 1,800 and 2,400 refugees that Australia refuses to admit only verifies his enduring indifference to our national security. The Obama Administration’s decision to agree to accept refugees who originated from countries...

With the strong support of the Obama Administration , both Lockheed-Martin and Boeing have been in talks with the Indian government to build the F-16 Fighting Falcon and the F-18 Super Hornet fighter aircraft in India, according to the Washington Post and numerous other news outlets. Both aviation...

The Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) was enacted with great fanfare and unrivaled deception in 2010 as part of a duplicitous plan to destroy America’s private health care system as we know it. The Speaker of the House at the time, Nancy Pelosi, infamously said in March 2010 that, “we have to pass...

Promising to bring costs down and increase access on the one hand, and enacted with enormous fanfare and unequaled deception on the other, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (also known as Obamacare) became law in 2010. This law was perhaps the most ambitious social legislation in...

One of Justice Scalia’s most memorable moments came in a compelling dissent to one of the recent ObamaCare cases. He cut through the majority opinion’s ambiguous, contorted, and complex legal justification for upholding the “SCOTUScare” exchanges in just two words: “ Pure applesauce. ” Pondering...

Thanks to two decisions of a federal court of appeals handed down today ( here and here ), it is now almost certain that the U.S. Supreme Court will decide next term whether the Obama administration can force religious entities, institutions, and groups -- under pain of severe financial penalties...

The ACLJ is an organization dedicated to the defense of constitutional liberties secured by law.

American Center for Law and Justice is a d/b/a for Christian Advocates Serving Evangelism,
Inc., a tax-exempt, not-for-profit, religious corporation as defined under Section 501(c)(3)
of the Internal Revenue Code, specifically dedicated to the ideal that religious freedom and
freedom of speech are inalienable, God-given rights. The Center's purpose is to engage legal,
legislative and cultural issues by implementing an effective strategy of advocacy, education
and litigation to ensure that those rights are protected under the law. The organization has
participated in numerous cases before the Supreme Court, Federal Court of Appeals, Federal
District Courts, and various state courts regarding freedom of religion and freedom of speech.
Your gift is very much appreciated and fully deductible as a charitable contribution. A copy
of our latest financial report may be obtained by writing to us at P.O. Box 90555, Washington,
DC 20090-0555.